6 ms·

" The U-2 can still fly higher than the Global Hawk, carry a greater payload, and its sensors have more of a slant range. The Global Hawk also lacks de-icing eq

by jotm 9y ago

" The U-2 can still fly higher than the Global Hawk, carry a greater payload, and its sensors have more of a slant range. The Global Hawk also lacks de-icing equipment and countermeasures against Russian SAMs. We may be entering the age of drones, but old-fashioned piloted planes can still do a thing or two." Why not just copy the U2 and make an improved, unmanned version?

katastic 9y ago
Probably because: - The U2 uses old parts that aren't wildly/cheaply available anymore. - The Global Hawk doesn't have a person in it. So they can send them into more dangerous situations without worrying. Which means they likely want a cheaper robot version. (Though, before RnD costs which skyrocketed, the price appeared to be only about 10mil cheaper.) - New sensor modules have a different footprint that the shell can be designed around than a plane designed in the 70's. Also, more computer aided design into the entire thing. - More fuel economy means more air time. (Additionally no fatigued pilot means more air time.) I know you said "remove the pilot" but the point is the entire thing can be designed for more air time, and more efficient fuel use. Of course, often the most obvious answer is simply: Money. Tax payer dollars are "Free", and there's political power to be had in rewarding "your" defense contractor the ability to make brand new, amazing, super, bells-and-whistle aircraft. (::cough::F-35::cough::) And there's no ego boost for simply upgrading existing planes. (::cough::A-10::cough::) Since every new program seems to be full of cost overruns I really wonder if they intentionally do that. They low-ball it, pocket the surplus "costs" as long as they can until congress gets pissed and then magically "fix" the product with a "modest" cash-influx bill from congress to finally finish it off. Because it's politically dangerous to be a congressperson that voted for this failed product that then has to be repealed. So they could, in essence, "fail" at making their product up until the point where it's just under "repeal time" and pocket all that cash. [edit] Here's a quote on Wikipedia that lines up partially with my comment about costs to fly: "Secretary stated: "The Global Hawk is essential to national security; there are no alternatives to Global Hawk which provide acceptable capability at less cost; Global Hawk costs $220M less per year than the U-2 to operate on a comparable mission; the U-2 cannot simultaneously carry the same sensors as the Global Hawk; and if funding must be reduced, Global Hawk has a higher priority over other programs."[21]"
- tonteldoos 9y ago
  I'm struggling to find it now, but there's a saying attributed to some well known military figure (paraphrasing slightly): There are two stages to any defence procurement project - too soon to tell, and too late to stop. EDIT: Found it. A Ernest Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald's First Law: "There are only two phases of a program. The first is 'It's too early to tell.' The second: 'It's too late to stop.'
  - katastic 9y ago
    That's great! My intuition was telling me that was a big loop hole but it's great to hear a real insider / authority speak it so eloquently. Here's an article I just found about him... from 1987. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/02/23/a-ernest-fitzgerald-analyst-who-knows-the-price-of-exposing-cost-overruns/be4bdff7-a375-410f-acce-927fa44312bd/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/02/23/a... Where it says he's been the most hated man in the Air Force for two decades. So, this guy was/has basically been telling us how things are since the late 60's. And we still haven't learned a thing / integrated this into our public common sense / knowledge. (Like how >90% of people know not to mess with the inside of electronics without experience, or how most people think the government/banks/big-oil/etc is corrupt. That's community knowledge.)
strictnein 9y ago
The U-2 was developed in 18 months with COTS goods and requires a finesse to fly that I think would be tough to replicate with computers. And Russian SAMs can easily take out a U-2, so I'm not sure what the author is trying to say there, to be honest with you.
- cellularmitosis 9y ago
  "tough to replicate with computers" I was under the impression that computers can fly planes which are impossible for humans to fly (e.g. the F-117, or any fighter with forward-swept wings). Since the U-2 is much closer to a "conventional" aircraft, and can be stick-flown by a human, wouldn't it be a walk in the park for a compute to fly it?
  - strictnein 9y ago
    Flappy wings, tough to land. Computers don't fly the F-117, they help humans fly it. The difference between the two is significant.
    - pilsetnieks 9y ago
      Those were the 80s computers though. We've gone a long way since then.
  - itsgreene 9y ago
    I'm not saying a computer can't fly the U2, but I do think it'd be more complex than a conventional aircraft. It has some pretty unique flight characteristics. From Wikipedia: "...To maintain their operational ceiling of 70,000 feet (21,000 m), the early U-2A and U-2C models had to fly very near their never-exceed speed (VNE). The margin between that maximum speed and the stall speed at that altitude was only 10 knots (12 mph; 19 km/h). This narrow window is called the "coffin corner", because breaching either limit would likely cause airflow separation at the wings or tail. For most of the time on a typical mission the U-2 was flying less than five knots above stall speed. A stall would cause a loss of altitude, possibly leading to detection and overstress of the airframe." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
Because it would be designed by engineers using computers and would eventually become so over-engineered that it would be a money sink and never fly in any real missions.
ProAm 9y ago
If you are interested in how the Pentagon, Air Force and Navy decides to fund and build aircraft, I highly recommend reading this book [1]. It's about the father of the A-10, F15 (sort of), F-16 and FA-18. Fascinating read about how the armed forces will completely ignore data on flight characteristics due to politics. (it's about the life of John Boyd, not just how aircraft a chosen but its covered quite a bit in the book) [1] https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316796883 https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/031...
- Uhhrrr 9y ago
  I second this book recommendation. Reading one of Boyd's more epic slide decks might be interesting to some: http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/poc.pdf http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/poc.pdf The priority placed on tight OODA loops jibes well with the Lean Startup doctrine, I think. Of course, since there's always an aggressive competitor for resources in Boyd's field, he emphasizes messing up their OODA loop as well.
  - ajmurmann 9y ago
    There is a great book that translates Boyd's philosophy to business: https://www.amazon.com/Certain-Win-Strategy-Applied-Business-ebook/dp/B003N9C0D0 https://www.amazon.com/Certain-Win-Strategy-Applied-Business... I generally love reading about how other fields do what we call Agile. It allows you to set the principles behind the implementations.
    - Uhhrrr 9y ago
      Could you give an example of how it helped you figure out something in business?
- Terr_ 9y ago
  > the armed forces will completely ignore data on flight characteristics due to politics There's a comedy/dramatized-history called "The Pentagon Wars" starring Cary Elwes, following the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
nyolfen 9y ago
this is a bit tangential, but my grandfather flew U-2's in the late 50s over china. a few months ago my aunt sent me a photocopy of a small essay he wrote about some of his experiences during his time flying, and particularly technical details about flying them. i transcribed it and put it on my blog here: https://hyperstition.al/u2-james-black/ https://hyperstition.al/u2-james-black/
hudibras 9y ago
My guess is there is a secret successor (manned or unmanned) to the SR-71 already flying right now.

by jotm 9y ago

katastic 9y ago

Probably because: - The U2 uses old parts that aren't wildly/cheaply available anymore. - The Global Hawk doesn't have a person in it. So they can send them into more dangerous situations without worrying. Which means they likely want a cheaper robot version. (Though, before RnD costs which skyrocketed, the price appeared to be only about 10mil cheaper.) - New sensor modules have a different footprint that the shell can be designed around than a plane designed in the 70's. Also, more computer aided design into the entire thing. - More fuel economy means more air time. (Additionally no fatigued pilot means more air time.) I know you said "remove the pilot" but the point is the entire thing can be designed for more air time, and more efficient fuel use. Of course, often the most obvious answer is simply: Money. Tax payer dollars are "Free", and there's political power to be had in rewarding "your" defense contractor the ability to make brand new, amazing, super, bells-and-whistle aircraft. (::cough::F-35::cough::) And there's no ego boost for simply upgrading existing planes. (::cough::A-10::cough::) Since every new program seems to be full of cost overruns I really wonder if they intentionally do that. They low-ball it, pocket the surplus "costs" as long as they can until congress gets pissed and then magically "fix" the product with a "modest" cash-influx bill from congress to finally finish it off. Because it's politically dangerous to be a congressperson that voted for this failed product that then has to be repealed. So they could, in essence, "fail" at making their product up until the point where it's just under "repeal time" and pocket all that cash. [edit] Here's a quote on Wikipedia that lines up partially with my comment about costs to fly: "Secretary stated: "The Global Hawk is essential to national security; there are no alternatives to Global Hawk which provide acceptable capability at less cost; Global Hawk costs $220M less per year than the U-2 to operate on a comparable mission; the U-2 cannot simultaneously carry the same sensors as the Global Hawk; and if funding must be reduced, Global Hawk has a higher priority over other programs."[21]"

tonteldoos 9y ago
I'm struggling to find it now, but there's a saying attributed to some well known military figure (paraphrasing slightly): There are two stages to any defence procurement project - too soon to tell, and too late to stop. EDIT: Found it. A Ernest Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald's First Law: "There are only two phases of a program. The first is 'It's too early to tell.' The second: 'It's too late to stop.'
- katastic 9y ago
  That's great! My intuition was telling me that was a big loop hole but it's great to hear a real insider / authority speak it so eloquently. Here's an article I just found about him... from 1987. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/02/23/a-ernest-fitzgerald-analyst-who-knows-the-price-of-exposing-cost-overruns/be4bdff7-a375-410f-acce-927fa44312bd/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/02/23/a... Where it says he's been the most hated man in the Air Force for two decades. So, this guy was/has basically been telling us how things are since the late 60's. And we still haven't learned a thing / integrated this into our public common sense / knowledge. (Like how >90% of people know not to mess with the inside of electronics without experience, or how most people think the government/banks/big-oil/etc is corrupt. That's community knowledge.)

strictnein 9y ago

The U-2 was developed in 18 months with COTS goods and requires a finesse to fly that I think would be tough to replicate with computers. And Russian SAMs can easily take out a U-2, so I'm not sure what the author is trying to say there, to be honest with you.

cellularmitosis 9y ago
"tough to replicate with computers" I was under the impression that computers can fly planes which are impossible for humans to fly (e.g. the F-117, or any fighter with forward-swept wings). Since the U-2 is much closer to a "conventional" aircraft, and can be stick-flown by a human, wouldn't it be a walk in the park for a compute to fly it?
- strictnein 9y ago
  Flappy wings, tough to land. Computers don't fly the F-117, they help humans fly it. The difference between the two is significant.
  - pilsetnieks 9y ago
    Those were the 80s computers though. We've gone a long way since then.
- itsgreene 9y ago
  I'm not saying a computer can't fly the U2, but I do think it'd be more complex than a conventional aircraft. It has some pretty unique flight characteristics. From Wikipedia: "...To maintain their operational ceiling of 70,000 feet (21,000 m), the early U-2A and U-2C models had to fly very near their never-exceed speed (VNE). The margin between that maximum speed and the stall speed at that altitude was only 10 knots (12 mph; 19 km/h). This narrow window is called the "coffin corner", because breaching either limit would likely cause airflow separation at the wings or tail. For most of the time on a typical mission the U-2 was flying less than five knots above stall speed. A stall would cause a loss of altitude, possibly leading to detection and overstress of the airframe." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

Because it would be designed by engineers using computers and would eventually become so over-engineered that it would be a money sink and never fly in any real missions.

ProAm 9y ago

If you are interested in how the Pentagon, Air Force and Navy decides to fund and build aircraft, I highly recommend reading this book [1]. It's about the father of the A-10, F15 (sort of), F-16 and FA-18. Fascinating read about how the armed forces will completely ignore data on flight characteristics due to politics. (it's about the life of John Boyd, not just how aircraft a chosen but its covered quite a bit in the book) [1] https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316796883 https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/031...

Uhhrrr 9y ago
I second this book recommendation. Reading one of Boyd's more epic slide decks might be interesting to some: http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/poc.pdf http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/poc.pdf The priority placed on tight OODA loops jibes well with the Lean Startup doctrine, I think. Of course, since there's always an aggressive competitor for resources in Boyd's field, he emphasizes messing up their OODA loop as well.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  There is a great book that translates Boyd's philosophy to business: https://www.amazon.com/Certain-Win-Strategy-Applied-Business-ebook/dp/B003N9C0D0 https://www.amazon.com/Certain-Win-Strategy-Applied-Business... I generally love reading about how other fields do what we call Agile. It allows you to set the principles behind the implementations.
  - Uhhrrr 9y ago
    Could you give an example of how it helped you figure out something in business?
Terr_ 9y ago
> the armed forces will completely ignore data on flight characteristics due to politics There's a comedy/dramatized-history called "The Pentagon Wars" starring Cary Elwes, following the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

nyolfen 9y ago

this is a bit tangential, but my grandfather flew U-2's in the late 50s over china. a few months ago my aunt sent me a photocopy of a small essay he wrote about some of his experiences during his time flying, and particularly technical details about flying them. i transcribed it and put it on my blog here: https://hyperstition.al/u2-james-black/ https://hyperstition.al/u2-james-black/

hudibras 9y ago

My guess is there is a secret successor (manned or unmanned) to the SR-71 already flying right now.